ED 294 737

AUTHORTITLE

PUB DATENOTE

PUB TYPE

DOCUMENT RESUME

SE 049 131

Melear, Claudia T.Perceptions of Research Scientists and ScienceEducators Regarding Science Education: Call forSynergy.8823p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theNational Association for Research in Science Teaching(61st, Lake of the Ozarks, MO, April 10-13, 1988).Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *College Science; *Educational Cooperation; Higher

Education; Institutional Cooperation; Opinions;*Preservice Teacher. Education; Science Education;*alcience Teachers; *Scientists; *Surveys

IDENTIFIERS *Science Education Research

ABSTRACTImprovement in science teacher education has been

called for by several scientists and science education organizations.The concept of synergy is suggested as a model for enhancedimprovements in the overall preparation of science teachers due topositive interactions between groups responsible for science teachereducation, scientists, and science educators. A 30-item Likert typesurvey was sent to scientists and science educators in Ohio andGeorgia. This study determined that areas of strong agreement existedbetween the two responsible groups regarding some aspects of scienceeducation. For example, scientists and science educators both agreedthat science teaching in high school and college were not the same.Areas of less agreement were identified that suggested increasedinteractions between the responsible groups could produceclarification among issues of importance, Scientists and scienceeducators disagreed about offering different science classes forteachers of K-6 and for science majors. Clarification of issues whereless agreement was indicated will be necessary for optimum efficiencyof science teacher preparation. This study suggests specific areaswhere dialogue has the greatest chance for success. (Author/CW)

***********************************************************************Reproductions suppli'd by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

Perceptions of Research Scientists and ScienceEducators Regarding Science Education: Call for Synergy

by

Claudia T. MelearPh.D. Candidate in Science Education

The Ohio State UniversityGeneral Biology

060 Rightmire Hall1060 Carmack Road

Columbus, Ohio 43201(614) 292-9861

Presentqd to:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOnce of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENT

Aihis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating ot.

0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATEAL HAS BEEN GRANTEQ BY

rii.d,er,TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

National Association for Research in Science Teaching60th Annual Conference, Lake Ozark, Missouri

April 10-13, 1988

Perceptions of Research Scientists and Science Educators

Regarding Science Education: Call for Synergy

Abstract

Improvement in science teacher education has been called for by

several scientist and science education organizations (NSF, FASEB,

NSTA). The concept of synergy is suggested as a model for enhanced

improvements in the overall preparation of science teachers due to

positive interactions between groups responsible for science

teacher education, scientists, and science educators. To

determine if there was a common ground for dialogue between these

two groups, a 30-item Likert type survey was sent to scientists

and science educators in Ohio and Georgia. This study determined

that areas of strong agreement exist between the two responsible

groups regarding some aspects of science education. For example,

scientists and science educators both agree that science teaching

in high school and college are not the same. Areas of less

agreement have been identified which suggest that increased

interactions between the responsible groups could produce

clarification among issues of importance. For example, scientists

and science educators disagree when it comes to offering

different science classes for teachers of K - 6 and for science

majors. Clarification of issues where less agreement occurs is

necessary for optimum efficiency of science teacher preparation to

result from changing the requirements for teacher education such

as those proposed by the Holmes group. This study suggests

specific areas where dialogue has the greatest chance for success.

3

Introduction and Need for the Study

Improvement in teacher education in all disciplines has been

called for by national reports (National Commission on Excellence

in Education- 1983, National Science Board Commission on

Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology,

1983). These national reports highlight science education as

being an area specifically in need of improvement; indeed the

situation in science education has been termed "crisis." Yager

and Penick (1987) have suggested that some scientist's solutions

to some aspects of the problem areas seem arrogant. Tenier

(1986) states that as far as teacher education goes there is

hostility felt in some schools of arts and sciences towards

professors of education. Arrogance and hostility could be due to

lack of communication between groups regarding problem

situations.

Science educators are calling for the participation of

scientists to help alleviate the crisis in science teacher

preparation and for the improvement of science education in

general (Skoog, 1985; Gardner, 1985; Aldridge & Johnson, 1984;

Gabel, 1984). Some evidence exists to indicate that scientists

want to participate in science teacher education (Federation of

American Societies for Experimental Biology, 1984). Literature

which calls for more interaction and involvement of

scientists in science education improvement in general, is

summarized in Table I.

3 4

To reiterate, extant literature is replete with calls for

participation of scientists in science education improvement.

Yager & Penick (1987) and Lanier (1986) have stated that there

are problems of both arrogance on the part of scientists and

hostility towards professors of education by some science

faculty. Anderson (1983) has determined that self-perceived

success in academic science is related to journal article

productivity and professorial rank. There is no existing reward

in higher education, in other words, for making efforts to

improve "education," including the education of teachers.

Rationale for the Study

No data exist on the perceptions of research scientists

toward science education in universities that will be affected by

the Holmes (1986) plan. Currently, more than 100 college and

universities have adopted the Holmes plan which will change the

way science teachers are prepared; an undergraduate degree in a

discipline will be required before a person can enter the school

of education. Thus prospective science teachers may spend even

more time in science classrooms than they do currently, prior to

becoming science teachers. Gardner (1985) has stated that

college science teachers are the main role models for high school

science teachers since high school science teachers take far more

science classes than they do classes in education. She also

says that the leadership for improvement in pre-college education

must come from higher education.

45

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess and compare

perceptions of certain aspects of science education between the

two groups who are responsible for science teacher education. It

is felt that similar perceptions on issues of importance could

imply similar levels of knowledge and/or understanding. It is

inferred that if similar levels of perceptions can be identified,

a concerns model for science teacher preparation can be developed

along the lines of the Synergy model in Figure 1. The details of

this model will become apparent from the discussion which

follows.

Theoretical Framework

Melear (1986) has described the concept of synergy as

applied to a problem in science education. The concept is used

as the theoretical framework in this paper and deals with

synergy, the interaction oetween elements of a system, as shown

in Figure 1. In this context, the elements are the scientists

and the science educators working together to improve, in this

case, science teacher preparation.

Description of synergy

Interaction between constituents in/between systems is a

well-known phenomenon in science. In the field of medicine, drug

interaction resulting in positive, additive results of multiple

drug dosage is usually desirable, while the reduction of

individual drug effects is generally undesirable. An interaction

can, in general, give two types of effects which are essentially

opposite to each other.

1. A synergistic interaction is an additive effect. The

result is greater than the effect of each of the

elements in the system simply added together.

Example of SYNERGISM:

Effect (1 + 2) > Effect 1 + Effect 2

OR

1 + 1 > 2

2. An antagonistic interaction .t a reduced effect. The

result is counteraction of vch individual effect. In

pharmacology, individual 4'rug effects are reduced. In

addition, the interaction of the drugs can actually be

detrimental to the system.

Example of ANTAGONISM

Effect (1 + 2) < Effect 1 + Effect 2

1 + 1 < 2

The use of the synergy concept was the theoretical framework

upon which to explain the results of this study in the comparison

of responses that either showed agreement or disagreement. The

elements in the system are the two responsible groups for science

teacher education: scientists, and science educators. The theme

of this paper suggests that part of the crisis that exists in

science education could possibly be abated, if synergistic

interactions' could occur between scientists and science educators

especially in formative experiences for science teachers.

The diagram in Figure 1 suggests that the two groups

responsible for science teacher education, and thus responsible

for much of science education, may have common areas of concern.

This study determined that specific common areas of concern do

67

exist between scientists and science educators.

Several assumptions were made including the idea that both

scientists and science educators are concerned about science

education in general and about the education of science teachers.

A pos::tibl ntltr,---Ima, of this research could be the development

of a concerns model for future research agenda program planning

if common areas of concern can be identified. It is a thesis of

this researcher that synergism in the science community can

occur--between scientists, science educators and science

teachers--if the goal of improving science education for all

students can be the focus. Scientists' contributions are

irreplaceable in conveying the nature of science to pre-service

science teachers. Formative experiences are a significant

predictor of teacher effectiveness. The literature in science

education has documented that what science teachers presently do

rarely resembles "scientific" endeavors.

Objective and Design

The objective of the research was to obtain and compare the

responses of scientists and science educators regarding issues

of science education. Toward that objective a survey (Butts,

1983) was sent to a group of scientists and a group of science

educators principally in Ohio and Georgia. Most of the group was

known by the author. About half of the respondents were employed

at The Ohio State University. About one-fourth were from a

combination of Georgia State University the The University of

Georgia. The rest were from various Eastern uni7ersities (Boston

University, John Hopkins University, Virginia Polytechnic

7 8

Institute and from the National Science Foundation officers.

A research scientist was defined as a natural scientist

working in academia. A college/university science educator was

defined as a professor (any rank) who teaches professional

education courses for prospective or practicing high school

science teachers. Validity of Likert response items on the

questionnaire was determined by a panel of experts which included

professors of science education and evaluation, and math and

science education doctoral candidates.

Analysis and Discussion

The analysis of the data proceeded along the following

lines. To begin with, the response data were treated as though

they were continuous in order to facilitate the analysis and in

view of the preliminary nature of this study. Statistics (mean

and standard deviation) were calculated for the response data of

each question from the scientists as well as from the science

educators. These summary statistics are given in Table II, and

the mean responses to the questions are plotted in Figure 2.

The results of the statistical analyses are in Table III.

The summary given in Table III shows that the variability of

responses differed for only 11 of the 30 questions. With respect

to the analysis of the differences between the mean responses,

which is essentially the heart of this study, significant

differences were found for only 12 of the questions.

Areas of strong agreement: synergy.

The most useful and hopeful information gained from the data

analysis comes from examining the questions for which the

98

responses were least different, between groups. Some of these

questions are listed below. These questions (numbers 6, 28, and

29) address issues of science education in which synergy, as

defined in this paper, has its greatest potential for the

improvement of science education.

The questions are:

6. Science teaching is the same, whether in high school or

college.

28. I believe that most people in our society understand

science.

29. I believe that public school science education is

important.

Both science educators and scientists answered question 6 at

exactly the same level of 2.3. The level of 2.3 was of Likert

type response between "strongly disagree" and "disagree." In this

case, as in the other two examples, no difference implies a level

of strong agreement.

Areas of less agreement: significantly different perceptions.

Other useful, albeit less hopeful, results gained from this

study is identification of areas of less agreement between

groups. Questions 4, 12, 23, and 24 are some of those which show

significant "differences in the mean responses between groups.

Those questions are listed below:

4. I am satisfied with the science education that is

offered in my state.

For the above question, scientists are less satisfied than

science educators and the difference of the mean response is

9 10

T

significant at the .01 level.

12. Science education majors take mostly education courses

whjle in college.

This difference was also significant at the .01 level. It

could illustrate that a misconception exists among scientists

about the amount of science that is required of the science

education major.

23. I have worked with at least one of the science

education faculty members in a college or uni-

versity.

There was, again, significant difference between the mean

responses of the scientists and science educators on this

question. A comparable question, however, for science educators

working with scientists was not included on the questionnaire.

24. I believe that college science classes for teachers of

grades K-6 should be different than college science

classes for science majors.

Scientists disagree with the above statement while science

educators agree with it. The responses were significantly

different (p=.01). This question and question 12 are the most

interesting areas of disagreement, in this author's view.

Interestingly, a multiple regression trial demonstrated that

the only qUEstion which was a predictor was an experience item,

number 19 in the questionnaire.

19. One or more of my friends teach science in middle

LJhool.

Qualitative Analysis

Many of the respondents were quite vocal in their remarks on

the questionnaire. Some of the remarks bear witness to the

hostilities that Lanier and Yager & Penick refer to. Below are

some of them from tilt. scientists:

I believe that elimination of colleges of educationwould be of major benefit. Otherwise, limits should be seton the number of "methods" courses taken and "content"courses should not be taught outside majors departments.

To teach science one must know science first and thenbe able to teach. The current system has too many scienceeducation courses and too few science courses. The mostdangerous science teacher is one that teaches well but knowsno science.

If you want to put education people in sciance classesthe choice of education people is crucial.

There was also some misunderstanding of the term "science

education" as indicated by remarks such as:

Science education vs science major is not 14 well-defined distinction.

I am a professor. Was I a science education major?

Who is science education faculty?a. Those that teach physics, chem, biol, etc.b. Those that teach about teaching physics, chemistry,

biology....c. Those that oversee the distribution of science

courses which are taken by k-12 teachersd. Those that teach graduate students who will become

professors in science departments.

Science education is actually education flavored withscience!

This last remark was not coded from a scientist or a science

educator; I would like to think that either one could have said

it 'vmse to item 24):

some classes should be different, most should be.:e major classes. As you know, we don't .1ways do ajob at the University. Some advanced classes are so

c specialized and poorly taught that I don't think they'd

11 12

much benefit early grade teachers. One the other hand,all science teachers would benefit from some advancedclasses and research experience.

Summary and Implications

Areas of acireement were found between the two samples of

research scientists and science educators. These areas of

agreement can be compared to comparable and possible favorable

interactions that can promote synergism between the two groups

responsible for science teacher education. This is possible

because "interaction," or close proximity of ideas, already

exists. This "close proximity," whether between molecules in a

chemical reaction or between human beings who agree on something,

is necessary before synergy has the opportunity to occur.

If close proximity does not exist, as demonstrated in the

results of this study by those questions which showed significant

differences, then it is possible that nonsynergistic

interactions, or antagonistic ones, are taking place. This could

partly explain why there is hostility among faculty and even the

arrogance described by Yager & Penick (1987). It could also

explain part of the crisis that exists in science education.

Scientists and science educators are together responsible for the

one common goal of preparation of science teachers. If the two

responsible groups are not in strong agreement on many issues of

importance in science education, then less than optimum outcomes

may be the products. Some of those issues are illustrated by the

items on this survey that showed significant differences. As

Yager & Penick point out, understanding of the issues is

important before resolution can occur. For many of the

questions, science educators indicated by the strength of their

responses, more importance to some of the issues. This is only

natural; yet there are strong indications in the scientific

community thct scientists too are deeply concerned about

improving science education for all students.

More explicitly, groups who are responsible together for a

common goal (in this case, the education of science teachers)

should also have this in common: knowledge about the outcome,

both ideal and actual, of the group endeavor. For example, if

scientists are not aware that science education majors take far

more science courses than they do education courses, then this

misconception needs to be addressed and then remediated.

In the case of question 24, research results that describe

elementary teachers' feelings of inadequacy in their ability to

teach science must be conveyed to scientists. Teachers of

ciAlege science courses need to come to an understanding that

science classes for non-science majors should be taught

differently than classes for science majors. Elementary

education majors take these classes; their feelings of anxiety

could stem at least partly from their own learning experiences.

In making explanations to teachers of college science, the

reasons for anxiety among elementary school teachers of science

must includean explanation of the differences in learning styles

between elementary school teachers and science majors. Much work

is still to be done in the area of identification of learning

style characteristics of these two groups. It is also likely

that basic learning differences exist, as well, between science

majors and science education majors. If quantifiable data in a

)

learning style profile format were available, however,

scientists might understand and accept that courses for teachers,

in some cases, need to be different than courses for majors in

science, because there are measurable differences between the

groups.

That areas of agreement as well as areas of disagreement

exist between scientists and science educators is not a surprise.

This study suggests specific areas where dialogue has its

greatest chance of success--those areas identified in this study

of strong agreement. It also suggests that there are some

volatile issues that can only be addressed through dialogue, with

the goal of clarification and resolution of differences, for the

improvement of science teacher, and thus all, science education.

Future studies of scientist groups are being planned to

determine if the results gained in this study hold true among

diverse populations of the scientific community. In addition, a

professional interaction index is being developed which will

determine current levels and types of interactions between

members of the science education community.

Selected References

Aldridge, B.G. and Johnston, K.L. (1984). Trends and issuesin science education. 1984 Yearbook. Redesigning Science andTechnology Education. Washington, D. C.: National ScienceTeachers Association (NSTA). p. 31-44.

Anderson, E.V. 13). Self-Esteem, networks, andproductivity in academic sciences. Paper presented at AERA.Montreal.

Butts, D.P. (1983). The survey - a research strategyrediscovered. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3),187-193.

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology(FASEB) . (1984). Strategies for increasing involvement ofresearch scientists in implementation of innovative scienceeducation programs. Bethesda.

Gabel, D. (1984). New directions in science educationresearch. 1984 NSTA Yearbook. Redesigning Science andTechnology Education.

Gardner, N.H. (1985). Good, but not perfect. Journal ofCollege Science Teaching. 25(1):7-8.

Gardner, M.H. and Yager, R.E. (1983). Ameliorating currentproblems in science education. Science Education.67 (5):587-594.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's Teachers. East Lansing:The Holmes Group, Inc.

Lanier, J. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M.C.Witt:uck (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. Third Edition.New York: MacMillan. Pp. 527-569.

Linn, M.C. (1987). Establishing a research base for scienceeducation: Challenges, trends, and recommendations. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching. 24(3):191-216.

Melear., C.T. (1986). A science concept applied to a problemin science education. Ohio Journal of Science. 86(2):26.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCE),(1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S.Department ofEducation.

National Science Board (NSB) Commission on PrecollegeEducation in Mathematics, Science and Technology. (1983). Edu-cating Americans fps the 21st Century. Washington, DC: NationalScience Foundation.

Remington, R.D. and Schork, M.A. (1985). Statistics withApplications t2 the Biological and Health Sciences. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Skoog, G. (1985). The need for collaboration. Journal ofCollege science Teaching. 25(1):6,72.

Yager, R.E. 1986. What's wrong with school science? TheScience Teacher. 53(1):145-147.

Yager, R.E. and Penick, J.E. (1987). Resolving the crisisin science education: understanding before resolution. ScienceEducation. 71(1):49-55.

TABLE I

Literature which suggests more interaction/involvement

of scientists in science education improvement.

Year Sources=

1983 NSB Gardner & Yager

1984 Gabel Aldridge & Johnston FASEB

(NSTA)

1985 Skoog Gardner

1986 Lanier Holmes

1987 Linn Yager & Penick

Table II. Statistical Summary of Findings

Item ScientistsNumber (N = 22)

Number of Mean StandardResponses Response Deviation

Science Educators(N = 15)

Number of Mean StandardResponses Response Deviation

1 14 2.8 1.52 14 2.6 0.93 21 2.2 0.94 22 2.3 1.15 21 2.3 1.06 21 2.3 1.17 21 2.0 0.98 22 1.9 0.89 20 2.3 1.0

10 19 3.7 1.411 20 3.3 1.412 20 3.8 1.213 18 3.9 1.114 15 3.7 1.315 17 3.4 1.016 17 4.1 1.117 17 3.4 1.118 19 4.3 1.319 19 4.2 1.120 22 3.6 1.721 22 5.0 0.722 22 4.2 1.523 22 4.0 1.624 21 3.2 1.625 21 2.5 1.426 18 4.4 1.427 18 4.1 1.228 22 1.7 0.929 22 5.6 0.730 16 3.4 1.0

14 2.4 2.011 1.9 2.013 2.9 0.914 3.0 0.715 3.0 0.815 2.3 1.115 2.8 1.115 2.4 1.115 3.6 1.215 4.1 0.814 4.3 0.815 2.7 1.113 2.9 1.014 3.6 0.815 3.0 1.015 3.8 2.115 4.2 2.015 4.7 1.015 4.7 1.015 4.1 1.015 4.4 1.014 4.8 1.614 5.1 0.915 4.5 1.214 3.4 1.214 3.2 2.215 3.2 2.115 2.2 0.914 5.5 0.712 4.0 1.0

TABLE IIISummary of Analyses

1

Question I

Number I

i

Difference ofVariabilityof Response

Morevar. a

Differenceof MeanResponse

Higher Ave.Importancea

1

2

NSb** SE

NS

NS3 NS * SE4 * S ** SE5 NS * SE6 NS NS7 NS * SE8 NS NS9 NS ** SE10 * S NS11 * S ** SE12 NS ** S13 NS * S14 * S NS15 NS NS16 ** SE NS17 * SE NS18 NS NS19 NS NS20 * S NS21 NS * S22 NS NS23 * S ** SE24 NS ** SE25 NS * SE26 * SE NS27 * SE NS28 - 'NS NS29 NS NS30 NS NS

a S = ScientistSE = Science Educator

bNS = not significant*= p .05

**= p .01

1920

MI

RESEARCH

SCIENTISTS

PERCEPTIONS

COLLEGESCIENCE

EDUCATORS

IMPACT

Figure 1. Synergy Model For Science Education Improvement.

21

IN- SERVICE

TEACHERS

PRE-SERVICE

22

4Ztu2

Comparisons of Mean Responses

-a- scientists

- science educators

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 .30ITEM NUMBERS

Figure 2. Mean Responses For The Survey Questions.

23